Post navigation

– FREE SPEECH for terrorist sympathisers?

COMMENT

It’s never too late to have a happy childhood.

By Alan Simons

APRIL 3, 2009 – In an editorial article published earlier this week in Canada’s National Post they stated that Canada should have allowed George Galloway to enter the country. “We disagree with George Galloway. Indeed, we think he’s a toxic clown who serves as a mouthpiece for some of the most dangerous people on Earth. But communicating ignorant opinions is not illegal. Nor should it be a reason for being turned away at a free country’s borders.” They add: “If free speech is to be upheld, it must be upheld for all.”

What the National Post fails to mention is that Galloway wasn’t turned away for what he was going to say, but because, as pointed out by one of our readers, “under Canadian law, it was illegal to admit him, since he gave money to a listed terrorist group. Lots of people are refused admission every day for some reason covered by the border laws, and of course, that means that all of them don’t get to do free speech from inside Canada.”

As much as I might want to agree with the National Post’s substance of why Galloway should have been allowed to enter Canada, I am also equally proud of the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), who for once didn’t follow the lead of their American colleagues. The Americans decided to allow entry to Galloway who spoke at various U.S. campus rallies.

As reported in jewishinfoNews, while visiting Gaza earlier this month, Galloway was interviewed by Motasem Dalloul, a correspondent for IslamOnline.net in Gaza. Dalloul’s interview appeared in the Palestine Chronicle news web site on March 13.

Dalloul pointed out in his article that Galloway had personally donated three cars and 35,000 dollars, a few hours before leaving Gaza. He also mentioned that Galloway referred to the Hamas leader Ismail Haniya as “the PM of all the free people, not only in Gaza, but also all over the world.” And as we all know, Haniya responded by giving honorary citizenship to Galloway by means of a passport. Galloway, by all accounts, accepted it readily. Is there not some credence, one would presume, into thinking that accepting a passport from a terrorist leader would make Galloway some sort of a ‘honorary’ terrorist accomplice?

Also, I really don’t agree with the National Post’s comment that the Canadian “government has now set a dangerous precedent.” I would suspect similar CBSA rulings applied to such “mouthpieces” as Sheikh Riyadh ul-Haq, a prominent cleric in England, Wajdi Ghunaim, who was also refused entry into Canada after it was discovered that he was a member of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, and more recently to William Ayers, the 1960s radical and current education professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, who earlier this year was turned away from Canada as he tried to enter the country for a series of educational events at the University of Toronto. Reports suggested Ayers was deemed not admissible after being pulled aside by Canadian immigration officials while trying to clear customs at Toronto’s Pearson International Airport.

In terms of a precedent being established, it wouldn’t at all surprise me if other countries will now follow Canada’s ruling as a means to refuse entry to Galloway. And that would surely be of a concern to the manhood of the member of parliament for Bethnal Green and Bow, who appeared on the British show Celebrity Big Brother, where he performed for the public by crawling around on all fours pretending to be a cat.

Today, Canada’s National Post reported that Galloway is suing Bernie Farber, the CEO of the Canadian Jewish Congress, and CTV. “I have instructed my lawyers in Canada to bring an action for defamation against Bernie Farber … and CTV, for comments he made that they allowed him to make.”

Perhaps someone should tell George Galloway that it’s never too late to have a happy childhood. But please, not in Canada!